ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) programs like DALL-E are often thought of as a way to get rid of workers, but that isn’t their real strength. What they really do well is improve on the work people turn out. There’s often a conflict between doing something fast and doing it well — a conflict generative AI could end by helping people become better and faster creators. And clearly, if these tools were presented more as assistants rather than as a replacement for people, the blowback we’ve seen (most recently in court) could be tamped down. ... We usually measure productivity as the amount of work done in a given time — without taking into account the quality of that work. Typically, the faster you do something, the lower the quality. Quality in and of itself is an interesting subject. I remember reading the book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” which uses storytelling to explain how quality is fluid and depends on the perception of the person observing it. For instance, what’s considered high quality in a sweat shop would be completely unacceptable in a Bentley factory.
While many security teams assign specific entitlements to API keys, tokens, and certificates, the survey discovered that more than 42% do not. That means they’re granting all-or-nothing access to any users bearing these credentials, which although is the path of least resistance in access management, also increases the security risk. Corsha’s researchers also found that 50% of respondents have little-to-no visibility into the machines, devices, or services (i.e., clients) that leverage the API tokens, keys, or certificates that their organizations are provisioning. Limited visibility can lead to secrets that are forgotten, neglected, or left behind, making them prime targets for bad actors to exploit undetected by traditional security tools and best practices. Another red flag: although 54% of respondents rotate their secrets at least once a month, 25% admit that they can take as long as a year to rotate secrets. The long-lived, static nature of these bearer secrets make them prime targets for adversaries, much like the static nature of passwords to online accounts.
In many cases, only IT has access to data and data intelligence tools in organizations that don’t practice data democratization. So in order to make data accessible to all, new tools and technologies are required. Of course, cost is a big consideration, says Orlandini, as well as deciding where to host the data, and having it available in a fiscally responsible way. An organization might also question if the data should be maintained on-premises due to security concerns in the public cloud. But Kevin Young, senior data and analytics consultant at consulting firm SPR, says organizations can first share data by creating a data lake like Amazon S3 or Google Cloud Storage. ... Most organizations don’t end up with data lakes, says Orlandini. “They have data swamps,” he says. But data lakes aren’t the only option for creating a centralized data repository. Another is through a data fabric, an architecture and set of data services that provide a unified view of an organization’s data, and enable integration from various sources on-premises, in the cloud and on edge devices. A data fabric allows datasets to be combined, without the need to make copies, and can make silos less likely.
Conflict avoidance can be corrosive, even deadly, causing teams to miss opportunities and needlessly exposing them to risk. Members might recognize hazards but decline to bring them up, perhaps for fear of being seen as throwing a colleague under the bus… No matter how sensitive the issue or how serious the criticism, members must feel free to voice their thoughts openly—though always constructively—and respond to critical input with curiosity, recognizing that it is a crucial step toward a better solution. Mamoli pointed out that "there is a lot of misunderstanding around psychological safety," saying that "it doesn’t mean we’re super nice to each other and feel comfortable all the time." She explained that the resulting behaviour should be that teams "hold each other accountable" and can safely provide direct feedback saying "this is what I need from you. Or you are not doing this." She said that "this is what we need to remember psychological safety really means."
One major criticism of the Online Safety Bill is that it poses a threat to freedom of expression due to its potential for censoring legal content. Rights organizations strongly opposed the requirement for tech companies to crack down on content that was harmful but not illegal. An amendment in November 2022 removed mention of "lawful but harmful" content from the text, instead obliging tech companies to introduce more sophisticated filter systems to protect people from exposure to content that could be deemed harmful. Ofcom will ensure platforms are upholding their terms of service. Child safety groups opposed this amendment, claiming that it watered down the bill. But as the most vocal proponents of the bill, their priority remains ensuring that the legislation passes into law. Meanwhile, concerns over censorship continue. An amendment to the bill introduced this week would make sharing videos that showed migrants crossing the channel between France and the UK in "a positive light" illegal. Tech companies would be required to proactively prevent users from seeing this content.
The foundation of quantum computing is quantum mechanics, which is fundamentally different from classical computing. Bits are used in traditional computing to process information, and they can only be in one of two states: 0 or 1. Quantum bits, or qubits, which can be in multiple states at once, are used in quantum computing to process data. This enables quantum computers to carry out some computations much more quickly than traditional computers. The potential for quantum computing to defeat many of the encryption algorithms currently in use to safeguard sensitive data is one of its most important implications. Although encryption algorithms are made to be hard to crack, they still depend on mathematical puzzles that can be solved by conventional computers fairly quickly. Due to the speed at which quantum computing can solve these issues, encryption can be broken much more quickly. The security of sensitive data, including financial information, personal information, and secrets of national security, is seriously impacted by this.
The growing threat of cyberattacks has underscored that organisations can no longer depend on conventional perimeter-based defences to protect critical systems and data. New regulations and industry standards are aimed at shifting the cybersecurity paradigm – away from the old mantra of ‘trust but verify’ and instead towards a Zero Trust approach, whereby access to applications and data is denied by default. Threat prevention is achieved by only granting access to networks and workloads utilising policy informed by continuous, contextual, risk-based verification across users and their associated devices. There are many starting points on the path to Zero Trust. However, one driving principle to determine your priority of implementation should be the knowledge that the easiest way for cyberattackers to gain access to sensitive data is by compromising a user’s identity. ... Furthermore, post-mortem analysis has repeatedly found that compromised credentials are subsequently used to establish a beachhead on an end-user endpoint, which typically serve as the main point of access to an enterprise network.
Whether privacy sits within legal, security, or both it is less important than ensuring your privacy team is well-resourced and able to collaborate with the organization as a whole. Key to this collaboration is making sure you have the necessary legal and engineering staff to conduct privacy reviews and navigate a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. Separately, you need to overcome the perception that privacy is an obstacle to productivity and get your product and growth teams to see privacy as a competitive advantage that allows them to build quickly and win consumer trust. Otherwise, pushback, low adoption, and apathy will prevent you from making any real progress. To unify product development with privacy standards, you have to make it impossibly easy for product teams to comply with privacy standards. That means bringing the privacy program directly into their process, right where they are already working, as well as giving them easy-to-understand guardrails that let them build quickly, without having to engage in a painful back and forth with the privacy lawyers and engineers conducting privacy reviews.
To guarantee a LC/NC strategy is successful, organizations must ensure there is a bulletproof infrastructure, data governance and security system in place, as well as full visibility into their data and applications. “As a first step, enterprises must gain an understanding of their data -- what it is, where it is and what it’s worth,” Mohan says. “From there, IT leaders can understand where security and compliance vulnerabilities lay and then work to eliminate these threats while ensuring sufficient oversight for potential legal and contractual issues.” While the responsibility of developing a LC/NC strategy falls, initially, on an enterprise’s CTO or CIO, Mohan advises tech leadership should loop in experts in data security, data protection and governance to address cyber and compliance threats and ensure employees are following proper company and legal protocols. ... “Every level of leadership can decide to use a low-code/no-code strategy, ranging from an engineering team manager who is tasked with building products for the company, to a CTO setting the strategic direction of the organization's engineering efforts,” he explains.
The BoldMove backdoor, written in C, comes in two flavors: a Windows version and a Linux version that the threat actor appears to have customized for FortiOS, Mandiant said. When executed, the Linux version of the malware first attempts to connect to a hardcoded command-and-control (C2) server. If successful, BoldMove collects information about the system on which it has landed and relays it to the C2. The C2 server then relays instructions to the malware that ends with the threat actor gaining full remote control of the affected FortiOS device. Ben Read, director of cyber-espionage analysis at Mandiant, says some of the core functions of the malware, such as its ability to download additional files or open a reverse shell, are fairly typical of this type of malware. But the customized Linux version of BoldMove also includes capabilities to manipulate specific features of FortOS. "The implementation of these features shows an in-depth knowledge of the functioning of Fortinet devices," Read says. "Also notable is that some of the Linux variants features appear to have been rewritten to run on lower-powered devices."
Quote for the day:
"It is the responsibility of leadership to provide opportunity, and the responsibility of individuals to contribute." -- William Pollard