It's very easy to see how this goes — one side of the ledger is the cost savings you get from remote monitoring, remote control, automated cloud backups of access logs from employee badges, or whatever dumb reason this system was internet-connected in the first place.
On the other side of the ledger is the potential cost and probability of a shutdown from a cyberattack, whether that's from a belligerent state actor, a malfunctioning or maliciously deployed AI agent swarm, weird accelerationist hackers, or whatever, plus the cost of constantly defending and hardening systems against attack.
Chances are, the cost/benefit analysis will heavily favor just unplugging the thing from the Internet.
The capabilities of AI are bringing the power to exploit those a larger audience (where before it was in the limited hands of nation states and other well-funded organizations, hacker groups, and a comparatively few talented individuals).
I agree it's problematic in practice, but I'm hopeful this will catalyze everyone to be a hell of a lot more disciplined in hardening their products and platforms.
Also banks are more likely to take basic security seriously and not leave core services open to the public internet, even if the code itself is full of bugs.
On the other hand, running old software where the code is publicly available, on hardware connected to the internet - you are cooked
You'd think so but I've seen banks leave compromised systems on their network for months after they were notified about them, including ones being used in botnets. One bank had even been temporarily disconnected by their ISP to stop the spam/hacking leaving their network, but they said they didn't care because it was just their backup connection in case their other ISP went down.
These cyberattacks are going after systems that barely even needed to exist in the first place, so of course they're insecure. In my opinion, this is a correction that was decades overdue. Either take your software seriously or don't bother at all. I'm surprised it took this long.
1. Legacy firmware will be a bloodbath, leading to a consolidation of firms
2. All digital infrastructure will have an always on AI "shield" of agents that monitor and defend against attacks
3. The attacks that survive will depend on human points of failure, leading to less control for humans being the default
What's stopping them from doing these right now? Script kiddies have basically reverse engineered the PS5 at that point, do you think state actors need better models?
State actors could always spy on whoever they want, AI (between hacking into phones even when their country is not big enough to just lean on the Big Tech firms, TTS models, and LLMs) lets them spy on everyone at once.
Various people (not sure if "script kiddies" is fair) may have reverse engineered the PS5, but they don't generally waste time going after Z-list celebrities' own brand of smart light bulbs.
Just as a virus lets you attack all identical computers once you've written it, a sufficiently competent LLM lets you attack basically all computers identical or not.
Now you don't know what the hell to do.
It is, isn't it?
Again.
When your fridges hit 50C, that’s not a bug... thats a hotfix
Though given how easy it is to make the error, "150" may have been a fat-finger typo for "50".
[x] Outsourcing identification to Internet companies (likely US).
[x] Outsourcing operational state of equipment to Internet companies (likely US).
[x] Displacing German and Danish workers with cheaper Poles.
[x] Cyber council member floats hybrid war rather than addressing its own incompetence.
[x] News comes from Kiev instead of Copenhagen.
I beg you pardon. I'm not cheap, but I'm also not employed. You want cheap so you get it.
(Joking)
There were other laughable things like that.
But in a world dominated by FUD (that HTTPS connection that only allows one fingerprint needs to go over VPN, that SSH port cannot allowed to be reachable (but that gaping hole on HTTP(S) is fine), without a firewall that server is insecure, ...) that's not exactly surprising.
>Kiev
ок
The spelling changed in 2022 and is hard to remember for those who don't make a living harassing EU citizens while blackmailing them for more money. You know what? Russia and Ukraine are really made for each other.
We need more distribution for the sake of redundancy. Less large data centres and hyper scalers, more servers in a back office somewhere.
The internet itself is less of a problem. It’s where most of the traffic goes that is the problem.
It's much easier to destroy the power generation for those data centers than the center itself, and power generation is much less redundant and more easily impacted. It can be highly visible if you are only hitting a few targets, but the actual impact ends up being pretty low.
See "The Cuckoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll
Hence we need alternatives. P2P wireless (and wired) networks Freifunk, Guifi and NYCMesh are three that works today, in practice and in the real world. Contribute to them, learn from them, replicate them elsewhere, where you live.
Imagine being a tech luddite. Flip phone, old PC you boot every time you want to use it, no internet presence.
You got to get produce on your bike and there's none because the fucking internet. This is the type of shit that tips people over the edge and go full Kaczynski.
Or if you're like me, maniacally laugh at the absurdity of over complicating basic infra.
Russia can withdraw today and all the fighting would stop immediately.
>All these sabotage acts will continue across the globe to drag more countries into the mix.
Russia can choose to stop these sabotage acts immediately.
>What is the UN Security council doing?. Nobody hears their efforts to stop anything
Russia doesn't need anyone's permission to stop the war immediately.
(But also, Russia is a founder and permanent member of the UNSC, so...)
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/western-media-are-not-reportin...
The russian disinfo was flagged so I'm posting it here.
Full disclaimer: I'm in contact with the NAFO leadership. ;)
And to them, that's a bad thing.
Echoing what everyone else is saying:
The UN Security council has no effective power over the five permanent members (or those countries a permanent member wishes to protect). Of course it is doing nothing against Russia, USA, China, UK or France; it can't.
What do you expect UN Security Council to do here, really? Two of the permanent members are waging offensive wars without cause, and Russia keeps vetoing anything about Ukraine, and the US keeps vetoing anything about Gaza/Israel and Iran. What exactly could they realistically do, in your opinion?
The UN is a discussion forum, imagine "Reddit for countries". It's useful to coordinate some global actions like vaccines and stop small fights, but anyone with nukes can ignore it.
We're about to hit a series of important elections as well (Spain, France, I think Germany soon as well?), hybrid warfare is supposed to influence in favor of extreme parties.
It's a major issue. On paper NATO can mop the floor with Russia even without the US backing, but nobody in a first world country wants to die in a ditch, and the endgame there is also unclear because Russia can play the nuke card if they're too threatened.
I think that was true a two years ago, but Russia has been forced to adapt to the drone warfare of Ukraine as much as Ukraine has been forced to adapt to the drone warfare of Russia.
I suspect that right now, both Ukraine and Russia have independently got armed forces which could wipe the floor with the rest of non-naval NATO forces. And I'm only giving a "possibly" for the naval exception because of their limited production rate of long-rage drones so saturation attacks may be harder, not that it's impossible: we can already see the US navy being forced into a much longer distance stand-off range vs. Iran.
That said, I'm getting this position mainly from watching Anders Puck Nielsen videos, so take with the usual scepticism/pinch of salt for "internet commenter/armchair general".
It's a perfect 'get out of jail free' card for any sufficiently complicated screw up.
This isn't to excuse Russia's abhorrent conduct elsewhere either, I'm just not entirely convinced by the boogeyman lazy journalists seem perfectly content to keep trotting out.
At the same time it's clear that it's not hopeless for those nations that choose to do something about it. Which is it for Ukraine remains to be seen. They are doing the correct first steo though. So there is that.
I wouldn't know, I don't use it.
Also, wouldn't know if he was on the mobile app rather than website. Which I also don't use, because I don't use X.
But it's up to him what he does, the mutual dislike you and I have of X has no sway over him.
Empty shelves, no online ordering.