61–70 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it have to do with space force? These are two separate issues.
Conservation of energy. I'd love to suggest that we just do everything all of the time, but that's unsustainable and fodder for another dissenting comment, so instead I suggest reallocation instead of creation.
With the US under a constant barrage of attacks it makes sense to trash the "space force" and create a legitimate "cyber security force." This may be our last chance to maintain global power through the use of force at all, given that so many competitors are gaining foothold in every other area. We need bullet proof IT infrastructure, instant backtracing, and effective retaliatory responses ready to deploy, yesterday…
Great example of short-term thinking! Your enemies distract you and make you fight the current fight to make you miss the next war.
... Right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few businesses die. The rest get the message that security matters. The ransomware industry is deprived of revenue.
This is a government agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship_Authority
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A federal regulation requiring decent cybersecurity measures would be better.
> regulation requiring decent cybersecurity measures would be better For those of us who make money when cybersecurity dollars are spent, yes. Practically, you’d get a federal agency writing checklists.
Do you use https?
Do you store password hashes instead of passwords?
Is the DB storing passwords in a firewalled network?
Is access to the DB restricted to only "need to know individuals"?
Does the DB send password hashes to other services?
Have you had a penetration test of your authentication system?
Do you sanitize the SQL you send to your DB?
etc.
Unfortunately the majority of security incidents occur due to someone forgetting something pretty basic or assuming "no one will ever find that".
I continue to wonder why more companies aren't utilizing application whitelisting. Most, if not all, of the attacked companies run Windows, and Windows have been able to restrict system to only running whitelisted application for ages. Sure, whitelisting is annoying to say the least, but these are critical systems, you don't need to install new software daily or even monthly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it have to do with space force? These are two separate issues.
Conservation of energy. I'd love to suggest that we just do everything all of the time, but that's unsustainable and fodder for another dissenting comment, so instead I suggest reallocation instead of creation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless they were globally banned, companies could secretly and illegally pay ransoms in them anyways.
They possibly could but a lot of executives would probably prefer that their soon to be ex-company took a hit than that they became personally liable for breaking a federal law.
With the US under a constant barrage of attacks it makes sense to trash the "space force" and create a legitimate "cyber security force." This may be our last chance to maintain global power through the use of force at all, given that so many competitors are gaining foothold in every other area. We need bullet proof IT infrastructure, instant backtracing, and effective retaliatory responses ready to deploy, yesterday…
The countries protecting these criminals are behaving like the taliban when they controlled Afghanistan.
Poisoning dissidents, hijacking airplanes, crashing hospitals and pipelines, we'd better be careful because eventually someone's going to get hurt.
A federal ban on paying ransomeware would reduce the incentive to commit these attacks.
Would it? For some businesses, the reality is going to be that paying is necessary to continue to exist. What happens when that option, as crappy as it is, is off the table?
I wonder if this will mean an increase in cyber security related postings in industries that have otherwise not had to worry about cyber security before (I.E the Steamship Authority, Meat industry etc)