amanfromMars 1 Wed 2 Nov 07:54  ….. telling it like IT is on http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2016/11/01/uk_revamps_cyber_security_strategy/
No wonder businesses and governments are always fighting competition and opposition. Bull shit advice infests and invests in their systems
cyberspace is invented, implemented and run by international businesses, not governments .....Andrew Rogoyski, an expert
Oh no it and IT is not. And when businesses and government continue to believe that it be so and possible, are they always fated to be reacting and playing second fiddle to orchestrating leaders in the Greater IntelAIgents Gamesplay Field of Virtualised Dreams. They be no more or less than useful abusive puppets on a stage.
amanfromMars 1 Wed 2 Nov 11:17  …. adding and revealing more on http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2016/11/01/uk_revamps_cyber_security_strategy/
Re: But, to point out the obvious,
isn't the whole point that GCHQ would have more money for "the creation of offensive cyber capabilities" that could then be sold around the world (as Israel already does)? .... Andy the Hat
Money doesn't create offensive cyber weapons, the smart anonymous capture of extremely aware and spookily wary hearts and minds does, Andy the Hat. And the abiding problem and Catch 22 catch is that such intelligence as those hearts and minds possess and would present for a fundamentally different future picture programming project, is not captive or attracted or attractive to current government services and international business operations, although the opposite/converse is quite a different matter. Such established status quo arrangements are cash cows and bounteous prey to the virtual brigades of novel foe and fiendish friend exercising practical imagination and persistent determination in ....... well, truly they be untouchable cyber domains with Global Operating Devices in Computer Command and Creative Control of Live Operational Virtual Environments ...... Realities.
And do yourself a great favour, and note to remember to never forget, such above is a statement of live fact rather than question of running fiction ...... :-) although I will leave it to you and IT to answer, if you care dare share, whether live fact and running fiction are both different and the same thing nowadays.
And, if you can realise IT for such to be so, is anything possible and deliverable practically immediately.
Now that's what I would call a Cash Cow to XSSXXX and one hell of a magic weapon to field and wield magnificently.
amanfromMars 1 Wed 2 Nov 17:11  ….. shooting the breeze on http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2016/11/02/survey_finds_75_of_security_execs_believe_they_are_invicible/
If things suck, change them.
But the difference between "Execs" and IT Sysadmins is that after a breach the Exec is heading down the road to another cushy job and salary, the sysadmin guy might be out of work a bit longer .... chivo243
It seems as if IT Sysadmins are missing the trick of laying a trail of virtual paper which leads to Execs being responsible and therefore unavoidably accountable because of their ignoring of calls from Sysadmins for more expensive/sophisticated resources to defend systems against intrusion/hacking.
IT aint rocket science, but it sure is complex enough for Execs to not know what trouble they can be easily landing themselves in with the rejection of the simplest of requests ..... squirrelled away to see the light of day later in a zero day they would know absolutely nothing about, until IT floors and buries them in unfortunate information they have direct knowledge of.