The CyberArk report outlines the substantial business consequences of failing to
protect machine identities, leaving organizations vulnerable to costly outages
and breaches. Seventy-two percent of organizations experienced at least one
certificate-related outage over the past year - a sharp increase compared to
prior years. Additionally, 50% reported security incidents or breaches stemming
from compromised machine identities. Companies that have experienced non-human
identity security breaches include xAI, Uber, Schneider Electric, Cloudflare and
BeyondTrust, among others. "Machine identities of all kinds will continue to
skyrocket over the next year, bringing not only greater complexity but also
increased risks," said Kurt Sand, general manager of machine identity security
at CyberArk. "Cybercriminals are increasingly targeting machine identities -
from API keys to code-signing certificates - to exploit vulnerabilities,
compromise systems and disrupt critical infrastructure, leaving even the most
advanced businesses dangerously exposed." ... Fifty percent of security leaders
reported security incidents or breaches linked to compromised machine identities
in the previous year. These incidents led to delays in application launches for
51% companies, customer-impacting outages for 44% and unauthorized access to
sensitive systems for 43%.

Digital discrimination is a product of bias incorporated into the AI
algorithms and deployed at various levels of development and deployment. The
biases mainly result from the data used to train the large language models
(LLMs). If the data reflects previous iniquities or underrepresents certain
social groups, the algorithm has the potential to learn and perpetuate those
iniquities. Biases may occasionally culminate in contextual abuse when an
algorithm is used beyond the environment or audience for which it was intended
or trained. Such a mismatch may result in poor predictions,
misclassifications, or unfair treatment of particular groups. Lack of
monitoring and transparency merely adds to the problem. In the absence of
oversight, biased results are not discovered. ... Human-in-the-loop systems
allow intervention in real time whenever AI acts unjustly or unexpectedly,
thus minimizing potential harm and reinforcing trust. Human judgment makes
choices more inclusive and socially sensitive by including cultural,
emotional, or situational elements, which AI lacks. When humans remain in the
loop of decision-making, accountability is shared and traceable. This removes
ethical blind spots and holds users accountable for consequences.

The competitive dynamics are stark. When AI can complete a ten-hour task in
two hours, firms face a pricing paradox: how to maintain profitability while
passing efficiency gains to the clients? Traditional hourly billing models
become unsustainable when the underlying time economics change dramatically.
... Effective AI integration hinges on a strong technological foundation,
encompassing secure data architecture, advanced cybersecurity measures and a
seamless and hassle-free interoperability between systems and already
existing platforms. SAM’s centralised Harvey AI approach and CAM’s
multi-tool strategy both imply significant investment in these backend
capabilities. ... Merely automating existing workflows fails to leverage
AI’s transformative potential. To unlock AI’s full transformative value,
firms must rethink their legal processes – streamlining tasks, reallocating
human resources to higher order functions and embedding AI at the core of
decision-making processes and document production cycles. ... AI enables
alternative service models that go beyond the billable hour. Firms that
rethink on how they can price say, by offering subscription-based or
outcome-driven services, and position themselves as strategic partners
rather than task executors, will be best positioned to capture long-term
client value in an AI-first legal economy.

One needn’t be an expert in the field of technical architecture to know that
basing a capability as essential as air traffic control on such obviously
obsolete technology is a bad idea. Someone should lose their job over this.
And yet, nobody has lost their job over this, nor should they have. That’s
because the root cause of the FAA’s woes — poor chronodebt management, in
case you haven’t been paying attention — is a discipline that’s rarely
tracked by reliable metrics and almost-as-rarely budgeted for. Metrics
first: While the discipline of IT project estimation is far from reliable,
it’s good enough to be useful in estimating chronodebt’s remediation costs —
in the FAA’s case what it would have to spend to fix or replace its
integrations and the integration platforms on which those integrations rely.
That’s good enough, with no need for precision. Those running the FAA for
all these years could, that is, estimate the cost of replacing the programs
used to export and update its repositories, and replacing the 3 ½” diskettes
and paper strips on which they rely. But, telling you what you already
know, good business decisions are based not just on estimated costs, but on
benefits netted against those costs. The problem with chronodebt is that
there are no clear and obvious ways to quantify the benefits to be had by
reducing it.

System Initiative turns traditional devops on its head. It translates what
would normally be infrastructure configuration code into data, creating
digital twins that model the infrastructure. Actions like restarting servers
or running complex deployments are expressed as functions, then chained
together in a dynamic, graphical UI. A living diagram of your infrastructure
refreshes with your changes. Digital twins allow the system to automatically
infer workflows and changes of state. “We’re modeling the world as it is,”
says Jacob. For example, when you connect a Docker container to a new Amazon
Elastic Container Service instance, System Initiative recognizes the
relationship and updates the model accordingly. Developers can turn workflows
— like deploying a container on AWS — into reusable models with just a few
clicks, improving speed. The GUI-driven platform auto-generates API calls to
cloud infrastructure under the hood. ... An abstraction like System Initiative
could embrace this flexibility while bringing uniformity to how infrastructure
is modeled and operated across clouds. The multicloud implications are
especially intriguing, given the rise in adoption of multiple clouds and the
scarcity of strong cross-cloud management tools. A visual model of the
environment makes it easier for devops teams to collaborate based on a shared
understanding, says Jacob — removing bottlenecks, speeding feedback loops, and
accelerating time to value.

Regulatory pressures have crystallised around concerns over reliance on a
small number of US-based cloud providers. With some hyperscalers openly
admitting that they cannot guarantee data stays within a jurisdiction during
transfer, other types of infrastructure make it easier to maintain compliance
with UK and EU regulations. This is a clear strategy to avoid future financial
and reputational damage. ... 2025 is a pivotal year for digital
infrastructure. Public cloud will remain an essential part of the IT
landscape. But the future of data strategy lies in making informed, strategic
decisions, leveraging the right mix of infrastructure solutions for specific
workloads and business needs. As part of our research, we assessed the shape
of this hybrid market. ... With one eye to the future, UK-based cloud
providers must be positioned as a strategic advantage, offering benefits such
as data sovereignty, regulatory compliance, and reduced latency. Businesses
will need to situate themselves ever more precisely on the spectrum of digital
infrastructure. Their location will reflect how they embrace a hybrid model
that balances public cloud, private cloud, colocation and on-premise options.
This approach will not only optimise performance and costs but also provide
long-term resilience in an evolving digital economy.

"The budget cuts, personnel reductions and other policy changes have decreased
the volume and frequency of CISA's information sharing activities in both
formal and informal channels," Daniel told ISMG. While sector-specific ISACs
still share information, threat sharing efforts tied to federal funding - such
as the Multi-State ISAC, which supports state and local governments - "have
been negatively affected," he said . One former CISA staffer who recently
accepted the administration's deferred resignation offer told ISMG the
agency's information-sharing efforts "were among the first to take a hit" from
the administration's cuts, with many feeling pressured into silence. ...
Analysts have also warned that cuts to cyber staff across federal agencies and
risks to initiatives including the National Vulnerability Database and Common
Vulnerabilities and Exposures program could harm cybersecurity far beyond U.S.
borders. The CVE program is dealing with backlogs and a recent threat to shut
down funding over a federal contracting issue. Failure of the CVE Program
"would have wide impacts on vulnerability management efficiency and
effectiveness globally," said John Banghart, senior director for cybersecurity
services at Venable and a key architect of the Obama administration's
cybersecurity policy as a former director for federal cybersecurity for the
National Security Council.
Recently security researchers have demonstrated real-world attacks against
connected cars, such as wireless brake manipulation on heavy trucks by
spoofing J-bus diagnostic packets. Another very recent example is successful
attacks against autonomous car LIDAR systems. While the distribution of EV and
advanced cars becomes more pervasive across our society, we expect these types
of attacks and methods to continue to grow in complexity. Which makes a
continuous, real-time approach to securing the entire ecosystem (from charger,
to car, to driver) even more so important. ... Over-the-air (OTA) update
hijacking is very real and often enabled by poor security design, such as lack
of encryption, improper authentication between the car and backend, and lack
of integrity or checksum validation. Attack vectors that the traditional
computer industry has dealt with for years are now becoming a harsh reality in
the automotive sector. Luckily, many of the same approaches used to mitigate
these risks in IT can also apply here ... When we look at just the automobile,
we have a variety of connected systems which typically all come from different
manufacturers (Android Automotive, or QNX as examples) which increases the
potential for supply chain abuse. We also have devices which the driver
introduces which interacts with the car’s APIs creating new entry points for
attackers.

Building resiliency and optionality into a strategic plan challenges humans’
cognitive (and financial) bandwidth. The seemingly endless array of future
scenarios, coupled with our own human biases, conspires to anchor our
understanding of the future in what we’ve seen in the past. Generative AI
(GenAI) can help overcome this common organizational tendency for entrenched
thinking, and mitigate the challenges of being human, while exploiting LLMs’
creativity as well as their ability to mirror human behavioral patterns. ...
In fact, our argument reflects our own experience using a multi-agent LLM
simulation platform built by the BCG Henderson Institute. We’ve used this
platform to mirror actual war games and scenario planning sessions we’ve led
with clients in the past. As we’ve seen firsthand, what makes an LLM
multi-agent simulation so powerful is the possibility of exploiting two unique
features of GenAI—its anthropomorphism, or ability to mimic human behavior,
and its stochasticity, or creativity. LLMs can role-play in remarkably
human-like fashion: Research by Stanford and Google published earlier this
year suggests that LLMs are able to simulate individual personalities closely
enough to respond to certain types of surveys with 85% accuracy as the
individuals themselves.

IoT interoperability and compatible security protocols are a particular
challenge. Although NIST and ISO, among other organizations, have issued IoT
standards, smaller IoT manufacturers don't always have the resources to follow
their guidance. This becomes a network problem because companies have to
retool these IoT devices before they can be used on their enterprise networks.
Moreover, because many IoT gadgets are delivered with default security
settings that are easy to undo, each device has to be hand-configured to
ensure it meets company security standards. To avoid potential
interoperability pitfalls, network staff should evaluate prospective
technology before anything is purchased. ... First, to achieve high QoS, every
data pipeline on the network must be analyzed -- as well as every single
system, application and network device. Once assessed, each component must be
hand-calibrated to run at the highest performance levels possible. This is a
detailed and specialized job. Most network staff don't have trained QoS
technicians on board, so they must go externally for help. Second, which areas
of the business get maximum QoS, and which don't? A medical clinic, for
example, requires high QoS to support a telehealth application where doctors
and patients communicate.
No comments:
Post a Comment