Risk Management – Page 3 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Ziggo delivers tech cr.p (their own words)

In Dutch… De titel refereert natuurlijk naar de ingeblikte-ham reclame die vertelt dat er dusdanig slecht spul wordt geleverd, dat er een afgestudeerde-oude stijl van een (gezien de benaming kennelijk buitenlandse, Angelsaksische) technische universiteit (en qua studiezwaarte/diepgang liggen die ver vóór op algemene universiteiten) nodig is om basale connectiviteit te realiseren.
Het gaat zelfs zo ver, dat ieder element van die connectiviteit overal in huis wellicht een andere aanpassing of aanvullende oplossing nodig heeft (dát is waarvoor een ingenieur is opgeleid) om de basale dienstverlening te kunnen leveren!

Jawel. “De Ziggo-engineer blijft tot het werkt, overal in huis”.

Terwijl de concurrentie genoeg heeft aan het optioneel aanbieden van een monteur (iemand die monteert zijnde installeert en aansluit) en ziedaar alles werkt.
[Dit is geen goedkeurende audit-opinie over de bewering dat dat laatste ook daadwerkelijk zo is – maar het is wel de insteek en bedoeling…]

Dus… Neem Ziggo, óf iets dat werkt. Niet mijn ervaring (heb ik alleen met andere), maar hun eigen bewering ..!

Nou ja. En:
[Somewhere in France; tend to forget where.]

Norm over substance of risk management

Overheard: A major company in a relevant industry re infosec – and well-known for their good and even so recently much improved infosec posture – doesn’t follow the mantra of “risk management first, policy/standards second” but first sets some quite rigid standards and then, when vendors can’t deliver (even when the standards are strict but quite reasonable and doable), do some form of risk analysis plus compensating controls / acceptance or what have we.
Because otherwise, everything gets so mushy (hey, normal (?) risk analysis is business driven, what do ‘they’ know ..!?) that the end result is a chaos of quasi-accepted risk all on one huge unmanageable infra heap of backdoors and byways (those in particular) which results in zero security. And because this way, standardisation is encouraged and security plus manageability hugely increased i.e. big bucks are saved.

So, it’s an interesting High Baseline Minus approach. Though I guess you may have some comments, so take it away …:

Oh, and already:

[Maybe green, but not fond of blaugrana ..? M’drid]

Fog(gy) definitions, mist(y) standards

If you thought that containers were only something to ship wine in, by the pallet, you a. would be right, b. would maybe have overslept on the new concept, c. would not mind I introduce the next thing, being fog computing. I’m not making this up as a part, or extension, of low-hanging cloud computing.
You think I’m kidding, right? Or, that I should have called it mist computing which is a thing already but only a somewhat different thing… You’re still with me?

Then it’s time to read up. And weep. Over this here piece that sets the standard, quite literally.

There. You see ..? Indeed low-hanging, as in the stack … That wasn’t so hard. But implementation will be, if required to be secure. Have fun, will TLS. Or so.

OK, this post was as it stated just an introduction to the IoThing – I was serious though about the Go Study part. Plus:
[Cloudy top cover, smiley backside of a place of worship; Ronchamps FR]

Modern democracies – are they party-less ..?

It seems that we’re in Transition times… When there hardly is a country’s election anywhere (where they’re relatively Free), where the parties of old still hold. Sway, that is, as in determining unchallenged the outcome of the elections and party lines to follow. Even when the result is a failed-from-the-start dangerous president, or just a continuation of bland (colourless) neutrality in ‘policy’ pursued.
Despite the previous fears of breakthroughs of ultra-right parties and ‘strongmen’ (not so much; it’s rather pathetic (mix of embarressingly silly and punishing for loudness)) – and notice that those parties have gained in strength and depth of followership, maybe not ‘won’ but there to dominate from the shady (!) backgrounds in many situations – everywhere what we see more, is that ‘traditional’ parties have crumbled, qua lead over the others, qua dominance in cabinet formations, et al., and/or are prone to in-fighting and scism tendencies (because of that, or were on the path to anyway; cause and effect running in circles).

What is left, is countries with impotent mixes of parties, party fractions and -factions, when these countries are affluent to an over-the-hill kind of rapid collapse in some near future. Or countries that weren’t affluent / aren’t-affluent-because-of, being lead by strong men with suppressed expression of political fracticide. The vast majority of presidents around the world are the perfect example of why republics collapse, and are at best equal but often worse off than kingdoms with their long-term views (when the king/majesty represents the nation, accidentally also in one person).

We digress.
When party politics (internal/external) are thus rendered impotent by their own doings, and parliamentary representative democracy is through that dragged down (in)to the muddy levels of shamefulness, what chance would blockchain-based societies, notion-of-nation-unhinged geographic regions, etc., have to be reconsidered as alternatives, e.g., the Heineken Map ..?

3D of the nudging to simplest infosec behaviour

Before you’re put off by the title its complexity … [Oh. You clicked. Wave function collapsed long before; ed.] This post is about improving the People part of infosec. Beyond the mere ‘awareness’ that begets you … a couple of days’ attention, then slippage into muchlessofthesame.

Two roads away from the dead end you were in, open up:

Nudging. Which is about small, inobtrusive and non too brainwashing incentives and disincentives, rewarding and penalising the good and bad so that ‘users’/people choose to do right without having to rationalise through all sorts of intricate, overly (sic) complex lines of reason why some shimmy is better than another twist. Just gently guide, don’t Law and Forbid. [Edited to add: This post was drafted and schedules for release weeks ago, before that Nobel Laureate was awarded his medal for this very method…]
Secure simplest option. Like the great many traffic controls; no traffic lights but roundabouts – the former, can be run through at high speeds in the middle of the night (and other times); the latter, require slowdown or you’re thrown off the road. The secure solution being the obviously simplest – the simplest solution being the secure one. People will take the simple road in stead of the difficult one. Better make the simplest one the safest. Not require the user to jump all sorts of complex hoops for safe behaviour! Like password complexity rules: The more you make them ever more difficult, the harder it is for users to resist finding loopholes and escape vents like writing them up (which isn’t a bad solution per se, but …). And in the end, you’ll loose the arms’ race against skillful attackers anyway; at the point where their smartness is hardly less than benign users need to get into your systems, you’ll have to revert to some other way anyway (re: dead end roads).
Ah, I’m not one for counting all that simple…
Smart trickery. This of course being a perfect example … a 3D zebra (road-crossing). Many great, very-marketable other such solutions may exist, to your (image’s!) advantage.

Now that you’ve read the above, how would you change your infosec ‘controls’ throughout …? Like, filling out the last matrix of this, in a smart way and changed to general infosec …?
For an additional bonus, outline how you apply this to your GDPR-compliance efforts… And:
[Advertising the trust you can have in this Insurance co.; Madrid]

Measure and/or die

For 10 points only, not the usual 50/100/150 and without pictures to color, identify the stupidity of this here rambling with an air of sophistication…
The ‘quality’ (quod non) of which is nicely summed up in the ‘metrics chart’ ..: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it” – referring to the degree (sic) of the stupidity; unimprovable…?
Be aware Always (link, here again yes), people, …:
Not everything that counts, can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts ..!
Oh well. Nice effort to get from ‘nothing’ to ‘something’: when shot for the moon and missed, one ends up between the stars.
In a vacuum, light years away from any matter. [Excepting virtual Heisenberg’ian particles; ed.]

Plus:

[To hope that one day, this king’s -dom may understand the British Crown / Commonwealth model before an all-out civil war breaks out…]

The logic of automated decisions;
ransparency through audits ..?

Not bashing, nor FUDhyping…
Was triggered by various treads, e.g., The Book on the subject (or, het boek in Dutch), and scores of elucidation (yes. be happy finally there is some truly) from the legal perspective, on GDPR article 15.1h and article 22.

The latter two not being conclusive, however. They are about requirements of transparency on the logic underlying automated decisionmaking. But there is no clarity about how deep that should go. Will “Hey your data is processed by some AI system [literally, factually incorrect statement because it’s only Machine Learning at max, today; does that construe a false statement i.e. fraud ..? ed.] and even we the builders ourselves have no clue what goes on in there – that’s the whole point of using it besides being able to fire a great many inherently expensive humans and we don’t care the least about the biases and other grave errors of the system it works fine for us!” be acceptable? Hint: No. Will “Oh it’s so intricate that we, let alone you, have no clue when looking at the audit trails that the system generates” fly? Same hint.

Because here, we see a new area developing for IS auditors: Auditing ‘AI’ [quod non but read ‘ML’ and you’re good; ed.]. As IS auditors are (supposed to be, I happen to know a fair share of peers … etc.) the experts in gauging systems functioning qua .. reliability overall, too. Which goes way beyond mere C-I-A but still, has Always been part and parcel of IS auditors’ education, right ..? I will come back to you soon, with more definitive info on how IS auditors should go about this all.

Oh by the way yes I did already notice that the more the system in scope behaves, and is constructed to behave, intelligently like the average (sic! statistically you have zero reason to put yourself above that! oh wait you read my blog so you are definitely, way off the right end of the scale) human, the more the audit will have to be like we audit humans today. Uniting psychoanalysis and explicit rules on paper (in procedures, algorithms et al.), very dogue much fun.

Plus:
[Though a flat, and has iron, legally misidentified as flatiron …; NY – Pic tilted to fit in the pic frame of course]

Self-driving my a..uto mode

What was it; that car company we’ll call ‘T’ as we don’t want their lawyers’ badgering, claimed the EULA on the self-driving of their cars required the auto-mode to only to be allowed when on reasonably straight roads in reasonably light traffic with full oversight always.

Apart from that being no driving fun whatsoever, and no help whatsoever in ‘normal’ (other) conditions, I have a question: Why use the system at all, then, when already I have cruise control and Mk.1 eyeballs for such circumstances and do nothing but steer lightly ..!? What improvement from ‘steer lightly’ to ‘not steer at all but always be ready and alert to’..? You’ll never be allowed to text while driving or binge-watch ‘flix while in traffic jams anyway. Is that worth all the trouble, hassle, and hype ..?

No it isn’t. It’s more like ‘cybercrime insurance’ (#ditchcyber) – when you apply all rules, you don’t need cover (and have none for the risks accepted or new in the first place) / don’t get any help from auto-mode; if you don’t, you lose all cover period

So, better get better auto-mode, without the circumstances-requirements and without the EULA extortions. Or, drop the whole idea and get on a bus.

Which may also beget auto-mode… ;-|

Oh, and:
[“Look mummy no hands!” would really take out all the fun…; Baltimore thank you sir for not jumping on the green light to enable me to take this pic]

Are you scared of perfectionism ..?

Not of but to.
This dawned on me, suddenly – as dawning of this better kind is unenforceable – a lot of people list ‘perfectionism’ as their default weakness-read-humblebragged-strongpoint. But it’s a weakness indeed because any such feeling will be rootcaused by insecurity, of the angst kind.
When taken forward, from the latter, one sees: Fear of the unknown, uncontrollable impact on the edges (first), will lead to overzealous focus on those edges, the rougher parts, to prevent even the tiniest deviation from the all-of-the-world’s-plan that totally deterministically was supposed to be followed to not introduce Uncertainty of any kind. No quantum collapse of the wave function allowed; no wave function allowed – that’s all heretical deviation from a supposed Plan from up high (where ?); der Herrgott würfelt nicht in the least! Quantum entanglement is that each and every quantum particle was predestined to be and behave / move as it does. No Uncertainty!

Or else … bad things may happen to you, e.g., your career.
You may get fired, for not perfectly achieving your Personal Year Plan. You may get fired anyway but that’s Bad, the devil’s work, or the shareholders’ (his rep’s..!) wish for slashing by the FTE numbers. To prevent this, just be perfect. Or, more practically, (say to, only!) strive for perfection. Bossed might want to believe then, that you’ll do your utmost and give your life, to make that happen. So bosses’ year plans are achieved. Or bosses, just to be sure, revert to the inhumane micro-management practices … so very common still today…

Let’s hope that proper risk management wins out in the end. If only since the more Chaos, the universe’s drive to entropy, is suppressed, the more gigantic will be the outburst of the Uncontrolled energy because it will burst out. Better to be able to control that through not letting the pressure build so high, by allowing steam to blow off in much more benign, possibly profitable, ways long before.

So, embrace entropy! Embrace balance ..! Just don’t be ‘perfectionist’ like everyone else and then be found out to be the very average sloppy that one reads so much too much of, even in trivial non-control of basic writing skills. If you write without care for proper spelling, etc., and don’t proofread, you’re waaay off to the wrong side of the balance ..!
Plus:
[Discuss, progress to the dialectic third way – which is NOT in the middle by definition; study Aristoteles on that..! Ottawa, BTW]

Spelling test compliancy

Where of course the post title in itself gives away the clue of this little Friday’s short post, which is: If you spell it as compliancY (with some rule or regulation), you failed the test. And you’ll be earmarked as n00b, however long you are in the industry already. Since you don’t seem to know that it’s actually ‘compliance’ with an ‘e’ only, nothing overcorrected.
Just because it hindered me again, last week, when I discussed matters with someone who had the silly idea that using an ‘y’ would impress, would seem to make their point hover at ‘GRC’ levels as if that’s not an emperor’s clothes exposé already. And it’s just incorrect language period

Whatev’, I’ll leave you with:
[Yeah, it’s a bit of an old skyline (pic) isn’t it ..? Toronto, ON for no apparent reason and the horizon isn’t even straightened yes I’m that picky]