Cybersecurity

[P@triot]

Author of this op-ed asks if either candidate is properly focused on cybersecurity. I think that is an insanely stupid question. The entire federal government is clearly not properly focused on cybersecurity at all. In fact, the only time they even mention it is when they are trying to leverage the issue to consume more power over the people and private industry.

Cybersecurity: The key issue Trump and Clinton still need to address

 

[SYTFE]

Like it or not, it is an issue in today's world.

 

[P@triot]

Like it or not, it is an issue in today's world.

It's a huge issue in today's world. And I've spent a very large part of the last decade advocating for increased cybersecurity. What is your point here? I'm an advocate for the federal government getting their shit together and actually protecting their entire IT infrastructure.

The only thing I oppose is them getting their nose into the cybersecurity concerns of the private sector (especially since they can't get their own house in order when it comes to cybersecurity).

 

[waltky]

Winter's comin', Granny wants to get a wood stove in case the hackers cut off the `lectricical...

US, UK Cybersecurity Officials: Destructive Hacks are Coming
October 19, 2016 — The world should brace itself for more physically destructive hacks, two senior cybersecurity officials said Wednesday, warning that a more dangerous era of hacking was already upon us.

Paul Chichester, the director of operations at Britain's new National Cyber Security Center, told attendees at an event hosted by British defense think tank RUSI that electronic intrusions were on their way to becoming more “destructive, disruptive and coercive.” “That will be our future,'' he told a crowd of officers, academics and industry experts gathered for a two-day symposium in central London. Chichester was seconded by Air Force Lt. Gen. James K. McLaughlin, deputy commander at U.S. Cyber Command, who told attendees that infrastructure-wrecking attacks were being seen “right now in the environment.”

A specialist works at the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington, Virginia​

Neither official went into specifics about what they'd seen or why they felt the threat was intensifying, although McLaughlin invoked a cyberattack in Ukraine which knocked out three separate power distribution companies last year. The Dec. 23 incident, believed to have been pulled off by a team of hackers using stolen passwords, left 225,000 people without electricity, according to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security bulletin published two months later.

Cybersecurity experts long worried that hackers can hijack the vulnerable industrial control systems to wreak havoc in power plants, traffic systems, factories, dams or reservoirs. Still, publicly confirmed examples of real-world damage from hacking have — so far — been few and far between. The Ukrainian incident provided a rare and dramatic demonstration of the physical consequences of a well-organized cyberattack. McLaughlin said there was now no doubt such hacks were possible. “Three years ago these were just theoretical,” he said. “Now we see them. They're practically here in front of us.”

US, UK Cybersecurity Officials: Destructive Hacks are Coming

 

[P@triot]

So the idiots who have proven time and again that they are incapable of securing their own systems want to create legislation dictating to the private sector how to handle cybersecurity?!?

Secret Service cybersecurity audit shows 'unacceptable' flaws

 

[waltky]

How do you make everything cybersecure?...

U.S. calls on automakers to make cyber security a priority
Mon Oct 24, 2016 | Automakers should make shielding the electronic and computer systems of vehicles from hackers a priority, developing layers of protection that can secure a vehicle throughout its life, U.S. regulators said on Monday.

The cyber security guidelines issued by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are recommendations, not enforceable rules. However, they mark a step toward establishing a road map for industry behavior as lawmakers and consumers pressure automakers to show how they will protect increasingly connected and automated vehicles from cyber attacks. Some of the agency's proposals, included in a paper titled "Cybersecurity Best Practices for Modern Vehicles," echo moves major manufacturers are making already, including establishing a group to share information about cyber security threats.

The Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk sports utility vehicle (SUV) is seen during the media preview of the 2016 New York International Auto Show in Manhattan, New York​

Automakers will carefully review the technical aspects of the agency's proposals as well as proposals related to the disclosure of information about "the secret sauce" of electrical and data systems, which is highly competitive, Jonathan Allen, acting executive director of the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center, said in an interview on Monday. The group, often referred to as the AUTO-ISAC, was established by automakers as a clearinghouse for companies to share information about cyber security threats and countermeasures. Automakers accelerated efforts to address hacking threats over the past year after data security researchers successfully took remote control of a Jeep Cherokee and publicized their feat. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in July 2015 recalled 1.4 million vehicles to install software to protect against future data breaches.

Charlie Miller (L) and Chris Valasek give a briefing during the Black Hat USA 2015 cybersecurity conference in Las Vegas, Nevada August 5, 2015. Miller and Valasek talked about how they remotely hacked into a 2014 Jeep Cherokee​

Other automakers, including BMW AG and Tesla Motors Inc, have disclosed actions to fix potential data security gaps. The security of data and communications systems in vehicles is also critical as more auto manufacturers gear up to follow Tesla's lead and begin offering significant vehicle upgrades through wireless data links. The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year warned that criminals could exploit online vehicle software updates.

The 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee is exhibited on a car dealership in New Jersey​

The NHTSA recommends manufacturers conduct tests of vehicle systems to see if the cyber security systems can be breached, and document their testing and their assessment of the risks. Democratic U.S. Senators Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said the NHTSA should do more. “If modern day cars are computers on wheels, we need mandatory standards, not voluntary guidance, to ensure that our vehicles cannot be hacked and lives and information put in danger," the lawmakers said in a statement Monday. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said on Monday the NHTSA guidelines appear to support the steps being taken by the AUTO-ISAC. The Alliance represents General Motors Co, Ford Motor Co and Daimler AG, among others.

U.S. calls on automakers to make cyber security a priority

See also:

U.S. takes aim at cyber attacks from connected devices as recalls mount
Mon Oct 24, 2016 | Obama administration officials sought on Monday to reassure the public that it was taking steps to counter new types of cyber attacks such as the one Friday that rendered Twitter, Spotify, Netflix and dozens of other major websites unavailable.

The Department of Homeland Security said it had held a conference call with 18 major communication service providers shortly after the attack began and was working to develop a new set of “strategic principles” for securing internet-connected devices. DHS said its National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center was working with companies, law enforcement and researchers to cope with attacks made possible by the rapidly expanding number of smart gadgets that make up the "internet of Things. Such devices, including web-connected cameras, appliances and toys, have little in the way of security. More than a million of them have been commandeered by hackers, who can direct them to take down a target site by flooding it with junk traffic.

Several networks of compromised machines were directed to attack big customers of web infrastructure company Dyn last week, Dyn officials and security researchers said. The disruption had subsided by late Friday night in America, and two of the manufacturers whose devices had been hijacked for the attack pledged Monday to try to fix them. But security experts said that many of the devices would never be fixed and that the broader security threat posed by the internet of Things would get worse before it gets better. “If you expect to fix all the internet devices that are out there, force better passwords, install some mechanism for doing updates and add some native security for the operating system, you are going to be working a long time,” said Ed Amoroso, founder of TAG Cyber and former chief security officer at AT&T. Instead, Amoroso said he hoped that government officials would focus on recommending better software architecture and that business partners would insist on better standards.

In the meantime, fresh responses by two of the companies involved in the attacks illustrated the extent of the problem. Chinese firm Hangzhou Xiongmai Technology Co Ltd, which makes components for surveillance cameras, said it would recall some products from the United States. Another Chinese company, Dahua Technology, acknowledged that some of its older cameras and video recorders were vulnerable to attacks when users had not changed the default passwords. Like Xiongmai, it said it would offer firmware updates on its website to fix the problem and would give discounts to customers who wanted to exchange their gear. But neither company has anything like a comprehensive list of their customers, many of whom will never learn of the problems, said Dale Drew, chief security officer with communications provider Level 3. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the only way they are going to reach their consumers is through media reports, Drew said.

U.S. takes aim at cyber attacks from connected devices as recalls mount

 

[Kingman]

I don't know how many Americans knows about those dangerous Cyber armies of North America and China

 

[Asclepias]

Author of this op-ed asks if either candidate is properly focused on cybersecurity. I think that is an insanely stupid question. The entire federal government is clearly not properly focused on cybersecurity at all. In fact, the only time they even mention it is when they are trying to leverage the issue to consume more power over the people and private industry.

Cybersecurity: The key issue Trump and Clinton still need to address

People that dont understand what it is and what it takes always think weird things like you. The government is really concerned with cyber security but with the nature of hacking its always a loosing reactive battle. As soon as one fix is discovered the hackers are on to new and more complex exploits. Why do you think the government hires ex hackers?

 

[P@triot]

Author of this op-ed asks if either candidate is properly focused on cybersecurity. I think that is an insanely stupid question. The entire federal government is clearly not properly focused on cybersecurity at all. In fact, the only time they even mention it is when they are trying to leverage the issue to consume more power over the people and private industry.

Cybersecurity: The key issue Trump and Clinton still need to address

People that dont understand what it is and what it takes always think weird things like you. The government is really concerned with cyber security but with the nature of hacking its always a loosing reactive battle. As soon as one fix is discovered the hackers are on to new and more complex exploits. Why do you think the government hires ex hackers?

What a bizarre response. I actually hold certifications in cybersecurity and have held jobs tasked with securing some critical data. Like, really critical data. Almost as critical as it gets. You go around setting up silly IoT like Amazon Echo for your friends mom's and you think that makes you a "cybersecurity expert".

As always, you have no idea what you're talking about. If the federal government was actually focused on cybersecurity, they wouldn't even be connected to the internet. They would have a private fiber network (fiber because it is the most difficult to "tap" and as a bonus in this case - because it provides the best throughput). That would instantly alleviate the entire problem. Even if foreign agencies left "thumb drives" lying around (as they do) and government employees plugged them in, the subsequent infection would be completely harmless as it wouldn't be able to reach back out through the internet with data or backdoor access.

Additionally, if the federal government even remotely took cybersecurity seriously, they wouldn't allow Microsoft Windows within 100 miles of a federal facility. It wouldn't be that hard at all to have developed a rock solid in-house OS. Being proprietary, even if there were flaws, foreign agencies would have no idea how to exploit them.

For offensive cyber capabilities, they could have a facility (or just a floor, etc.) connected to the internet with those devices serving the dual purpose of being "honeypots".

I could go on all day with examples. But this is more than enough to prove you're wrong. No go back to playing "IT expert" and finish setting up your best friend's grandma's Amazon Dot.

 

[Asclepias]

Author of this op-ed asks if either candidate is properly focused on cybersecurity. I think that is an insanely stupid question. The entire federal government is clearly not properly focused on cybersecurity at all. In fact, the only time they even mention it is when they are trying to leverage the issue to consume more power over the people and private industry.

Cybersecurity: The key issue Trump and Clinton still need to address

People that dont understand what it is and what it takes always think weird things like you. The government is really concerned with cyber security but with the nature of hacking its always a loosing reactive battle. As soon as one fix is discovered the hackers are on to new and more complex exploits. Why do you think the government hires ex hackers?

What a bizarre response. I actually hold certifications in cybersecurity and have held jobs tasked with securing some critical data. Like, really critical data. Almost as critical as it gets. You go around setting up silly IoT like Amazon Echo for your friends mom's and you think that makes you a "cybersecurity expert".

As always, you have no idea what you're talking about. If the federal government was actually focused on cybersecurity, they wouldn't even be connected to the internet. They would have a private fiber network (fiber because it is the most difficult to "tap" and as a bonus in this case - because it provides the best throughput). That would instantly alleviate the entire problem. Even if foreign agencies left "thumb drives" lying around (as they do) and government employees plugged them in, the subsequent infection would be completely harmless as it wouldn't be able to reach back out through the internet with data or backdoor access.

Additionally, if the federal government even remotely took cybersecurity seriously, they wouldn't allow Microsoft Windows within 100 miles of a federal facility. It wouldn't be that hard at all to have developed a rock solid in-house OS. Being proprietary, even if there were flaws, foreign agencies would have no idea how to exploit them.

For offensive cyber capabilities, they could have a facility (or just a floor, etc.) connected to the internet with those devices serving the dual purpose of being "honeypots".

I could go on all day with examples. But this is more than enough to prove you're wrong. No go back to playing "IT expert" and finish setting up your best friend's grandma's Amazon Dot.

Yes you claimed that before but you were unable to tell me even one certification you had. If you really worked in the industry you would know the hackers are always a step ahead and that its one of the governments top priorities. Until you can prove you know anything about cyber security you sound like a know nothing at all idiot as usual.

Your idiocy in not knowing why Windows is still used lets me know further you are probably repeating something some first level person told you.

 

[P@triot]

Author of this op-ed asks if either candidate is properly focused on cybersecurity. I think that is an insanely stupid question. The entire federal government is clearly not properly focused on cybersecurity at all. In fact, the only time they even mention it is when they are trying to leverage the issue to consume more power over the people and private industry.

Cybersecurity: The key issue Trump and Clinton still need to address

People that dont understand what it is and what it takes always think weird things like you. The government is really concerned with cyber security but with the nature of hacking its always a loosing reactive battle. As soon as one fix is discovered the hackers are on to new and more complex exploits. Why do you think the government hires ex hackers?

What a bizarre response. I actually hold certifications in cybersecurity and have held jobs tasked with securing some critical data. Like, really critical data. Almost as critical as it gets. You go around setting up silly IoT like Amazon Echo for your friends mom's and you think that makes you a "cybersecurity expert".

As always, you have no idea what you're talking about. If the federal government was actually focused on cybersecurity, they wouldn't even be connected to the internet. They would have a private fiber network (fiber because it is the most difficult to "tap" and as a bonus in this case - because it provides the best throughput). That would instantly alleviate the entire problem. Even if foreign agencies left "thumb drives" lying around (as they do) and government employees plugged them in, the subsequent infection would be completely harmless as it wouldn't be able to reach back out through the internet with data or backdoor access.

Additionally, if the federal government even remotely took cybersecurity seriously, they wouldn't allow Microsoft Windows within 100 miles of a federal facility. It wouldn't be that hard at all to have developed a rock solid in-house OS. Being proprietary, even if there were flaws, foreign agencies would have no idea how to exploit them.

For offensive cyber capabilities, they could have a facility (or just a floor, etc.) connected to the internet with those devices serving the dual purpose of being "honeypots".

I could go on all day with examples. But this is more than enough to prove you're wrong. No go back to playing "IT expert" and finish setting up your best friend's grandma's Amazon Dot.

Yes you claimed that before but you were unable to tell me even one certification you had. If you really worked in the industry you would know the hackers are always a step ahead and that its one of the governments top priorities. Until you can prove you know anything about cyber security you sound like a know nothing at all idiot as usual.

Your idiocy in not knowing why Windows is still used lets me know further you are probably repeating something some first level person told you.

How is your friend's grandma's Amazon DOT setup coming along?

 

[Asclepias]

Author of this op-ed asks if either candidate is properly focused on cybersecurity. I think that is an insanely stupid question. The entire federal government is clearly not properly focused on cybersecurity at all. In fact, the only time they even mention it is when they are trying to leverage the issue to consume more power over the people and private industry.

Cybersecurity: The key issue Trump and Clinton still need to address

People that dont understand what it is and what it takes always think weird things like you. The government is really concerned with cyber security but with the nature of hacking its always a loosing reactive battle. As soon as one fix is discovered the hackers are on to new and more complex exploits. Why do you think the government hires ex hackers?

What a bizarre response. I actually hold certifications in cybersecurity and have held jobs tasked with securing some critical data. Like, really critical data. Almost as critical as it gets. You go around setting up silly IoT like Amazon Echo for your friends mom's and you think that makes you a "cybersecurity expert".

As always, you have no idea what you're talking about. If the federal government was actually focused on cybersecurity, they wouldn't even be connected to the internet. They would have a private fiber network (fiber because it is the most difficult to "tap" and as a bonus in this case - because it provides the best throughput). That would instantly alleviate the entire problem. Even if foreign agencies left "thumb drives" lying around (as they do) and government employees plugged them in, the subsequent infection would be completely harmless as it wouldn't be able to reach back out through the internet with data or backdoor access.

Additionally, if the federal government even remotely took cybersecurity seriously, they wouldn't allow Microsoft Windows within 100 miles of a federal facility. It wouldn't be that hard at all to have developed a rock solid in-house OS. Being proprietary, even if there were flaws, foreign agencies would have no idea how to exploit them.

For offensive cyber capabilities, they could have a facility (or just a floor, etc.) connected to the internet with those devices serving the dual purpose of being "honeypots".

I could go on all day with examples. But this is more than enough to prove you're wrong. No go back to playing "IT expert" and finish setting up your best friend's grandma's Amazon Dot.

Yes you claimed that before but you were unable to tell me even one certification you had. If you really worked in the industry you would know the hackers are always a step ahead and that its one of the governments top priorities. Until you can prove you know anything about cyber security you sound like a know nothing at all idiot as usual.

Your idiocy in not knowing why Windows is still used lets me know further you are probably repeating something some first level person told you.

How is your friend's grandma's Amazon DOT setup coming along?

Great. What does that have to do with your inability to tell me what security certs you hold?

 

[P@triot]

Author of this op-ed asks if either candidate is properly focused on cybersecurity. I think that is an insanely stupid question. The entire federal government is clearly not properly focused on cybersecurity at all. In fact, the only time they even mention it is when they are trying to leverage the issue to consume more power over the people and private industry.

Cybersecurity: The key issue Trump and Clinton still need to address

People that dont understand what it is and what it takes always think weird things like you. The government is really concerned with cyber security but with the nature of hacking its always a loosing reactive battle. As soon as one fix is discovered the hackers are on to new and more complex exploits. Why do you think the government hires ex hackers?

What a bizarre response. I actually hold certifications in cybersecurity and have held jobs tasked with securing some critical data. Like, really critical data. Almost as critical as it gets. You go around setting up silly IoT like Amazon Echo for your friends mom's and you think that makes you a "cybersecurity expert".

As always, you have no idea what you're talking about. If the federal government was actually focused on cybersecurity, they wouldn't even be connected to the internet. They would have a private fiber network (fiber because it is the most difficult to "tap" and as a bonus in this case - because it provides the best throughput). That would instantly alleviate the entire problem. Even if foreign agencies left "thumb drives" lying around (as they do) and government employees plugged them in, the subsequent infection would be completely harmless as it wouldn't be able to reach back out through the internet with data or backdoor access.

Additionally, if the federal government even remotely took cybersecurity seriously, they wouldn't allow Microsoft Windows within 100 miles of a federal facility. It wouldn't be that hard at all to have developed a rock solid in-house OS. Being proprietary, even if there were flaws, foreign agencies would have no idea how to exploit them.

For offensive cyber capabilities, they could have a facility (or just a floor, etc.) connected to the internet with those devices serving the dual purpose of being "honeypots".

I could go on all day with examples. But this is more than enough to prove you're wrong. No go back to playing "IT expert" and finish setting up your best friend's grandma's Amazon Dot.

Yes you claimed that before but you were unable to tell me even one certification you had. If you really worked in the industry you would know the hackers are always a step ahead and that its one of the governments top priorities. Until you can prove you know anything about cyber security you sound like a know nothing at all idiot as usual.

Your idiocy in not knowing why Windows is still used lets me know further you are probably repeating something some first level person told you.

How is your friend's grandma's Amazon DOT setup coming along?

Great. What does that have to do with your inability to tell me what security certs you hold?

It just illustrates that (as usual) you have no idea what you're talking about and (as usual) - it doesn't stop you from talking anyway.

 

[Asclepias]

People that dont understand what it is and what it takes always think weird things like you. The government is really concerned with cyber security but with the nature of hacking its always a loosing reactive battle. As soon as one fix is discovered the hackers are on to new and more complex exploits. Why do you think the government hires ex hackers?

What a bizarre response. I actually hold certifications in cybersecurity and have held jobs tasked with securing some critical data. Like, really critical data. Almost as critical as it gets. You go around setting up silly IoT like Amazon Echo for your friends mom's and you think that makes you a "cybersecurity expert".

As always, you have no idea what you're talking about. If the federal government was actually focused on cybersecurity, they wouldn't even be connected to the internet. They would have a private fiber network (fiber because it is the most difficult to "tap" and as a bonus in this case - because it provides the best throughput). That would instantly alleviate the entire problem. Even if foreign agencies left "thumb drives" lying around (as they do) and government employees plugged them in, the subsequent infection would be completely harmless as it wouldn't be able to reach back out through the internet with data or backdoor access.

Additionally, if the federal government even remotely took cybersecurity seriously, they wouldn't allow Microsoft Windows within 100 miles of a federal facility. It wouldn't be that hard at all to have developed a rock solid in-house OS. Being proprietary, even if there were flaws, foreign agencies would have no idea how to exploit them.

For offensive cyber capabilities, they could have a facility (or just a floor, etc.) connected to the internet with those devices serving the dual purpose of being "honeypots".

I could go on all day with examples. But this is more than enough to prove you're wrong. No go back to playing "IT expert" and finish setting up your best friend's grandma's Amazon Dot.

Yes you claimed that before but you were unable to tell me even one certification you had. If you really worked in the industry you would know the hackers are always a step ahead and that its one of the governments top priorities. Until you can prove you know anything about cyber security you sound like a know nothing at all idiot as usual.

Your idiocy in not knowing why Windows is still used lets me know further you are probably repeating something some first level person told you.

How is your friend's grandma's Amazon DOT setup coming along?

Great. What does that have to do with your inability to tell me what security certs you hold?

It just illustrates that (as usual) you have no idea what you're talking about and (as usual) - it doesn't stop you from talking anyway.

Setting up an Echo Dot means I dont know what I am talking about on another subject? I cant help it you are a one trick pony and fraud. You do realize people can be amazing in more than one category right? Someone should have told you that you dont have to concentrate on only one thing. You can be amazing like me in multiple disciplines.

 

[P@triot]

Setting up an Echo Dot means I dont know what I am talking about on another subject? I cant help it you are a one trick pony and fraud. You do realize people can be amazing in more than one category right? Someone should have told you that you dont have to concentrate on only one thing. You can be amazing like me in multiple disciplines.

If you were "amazing" at cybersecurity you'd be pulling down $80k - $110k providing cybersecurity to organizations. Not setting up Amazon Echos for grandmas at $14 per hour.

Trust me.....if you're not doing it for a living (and you're not) then you are not "amazing" at it. You don't even know what it is you don't know.

 

[Asclepias]

Setting up an Echo Dot means I dont know what I am talking about on another subject? I cant help it you are a one trick pony and fraud. You do realize people can be amazing in more than one category right? Someone should have told you that you dont have to concentrate on only one thing. You can be amazing like me in multiple disciplines.

If you were "amazing" at cybersecurity you'd be pulling down $80k - $110k providing cybersecurity to organizations. Not setting up Amazon Echos for grandmas at $14 per hour.

Trust me.....if you're not doing it for a living (and you're not) then you are not "amazing" at it. You don't even know what it is you don't know.

I pull down much much more than a paltry $110k. Is that all you make? This is how I know you arent in the big leagues yet or at all son. When I made the transition from being an employee to being a business owner i was making over $200K.

I set up Amazon echos for free. Its a hobby of mine.

 

[P@triot]

Setting up an Echo Dot means I dont know what I am talking about on another subject? I cant help it you are a one trick pony and fraud. You do realize people can be amazing in more than one category right? Someone should have told you that you dont have to concentrate on only one thing. You can be amazing like me in multiple disciplines.

If you were "amazing" at cybersecurity you'd be pulling down $80k - $110k providing cybersecurity to organizations. Not setting up Amazon Echos for grandmas at $14 per hour.

Trust me.....if you're not doing it for a living (and you're not) then you are not "amazing" at it. You don't even know what it is you don't know.

I pull down much much more than a paltry $110k. Is that all you make? This is how I know you arent in the big leagues yet or at all son. When I made the transition from being an employee to being a business owner i was making over $200K.

I set up Amazon echos for free. Its a hobby of mine.

Bwahahahahaha!

 

[Asclepias]

Setting up an Echo Dot means I dont know what I am talking about on another subject? I cant help it you are a one trick pony and fraud. You do realize people can be amazing in more than one category right? Someone should have told you that you dont have to concentrate on only one thing. You can be amazing like me in multiple disciplines.

If you were "amazing" at cybersecurity you'd be pulling down $80k - $110k providing cybersecurity to organizations. Not setting up Amazon Echos for grandmas at $14 per hour.

Trust me.....if you're not doing it for a living (and you're not) then you are not "amazing" at it. You don't even know what it is you don't know.

I pull down much much more than a paltry $110k. Is that all you make? This is how I know you arent in the big leagues yet or at all son. When I made the transition from being an employee to being a business owner i was making over $200K.

I set up Amazon echos for free. Its a hobby of mine.

Bwahahahahaha!

Stop kid. Youre embarrassing yourself. $110K?

 

[P@triot]

Setting up an Echo Dot means I dont know what I am talking about on another subject? I cant help it you are a one trick pony and fraud. You do realize people can be amazing in more than one category right? Someone should have told you that you dont have to concentrate on only one thing. You can be amazing like me in multiple disciplines.

If you were "amazing" at cybersecurity you'd be pulling down $80k - $110k providing cybersecurity to organizations. Not setting up Amazon Echos for grandmas at $14 per hour.

Trust me.....if you're not doing it for a living (and you're not) then you are not "amazing" at it. You don't even know what it is you don't know.

I pull down much much more than a paltry $110k. Is that all you make? This is how I know you arent in the big leagues yet or at all son. When I made the transition from being an employee to being a business owner i was making over $200K.

I set up Amazon echos for free. Its a hobby of mine.

Bwahahahahaha!

Stop kid. Youre embarrassing yourself. $110K?

Dude...you set up Amazon Dots for a living. You're not a cybersecurity expert. You think you sound "knowledgeable" saying "the hackers are always one step ahead". That's something we would hear from people at nursing homes. You're in your 20's and you plug in Amazon electronics for a living.

 

[waltky]

New York Offers Free Cybersecurity Tools to Public to Deter Hackers...

New York Offers Free Cybersecurity Tools to Public to Deter Hackers
March 29, 2018 - New York City will offer free cybersecurity tools to the public as part of a new effort to improve online safety, officials said Thursday, a week after Atlanta was hit with a ransomware attack that knocked some municipal systems offline.

The program, dubbed NYC Secure, will launch a free smartphone protection app to warn users when suspicious activity is detected on their devices, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announced at a news conference. "New Yorkers aren't safe online. We can't wait around for other levels of government to do something about it or the private sector," de Blasio said. The program will cost the city about $5 million per year, he said. "It's our job in government to make sure that people are safe online. It's a new reality," de Blasio said.

City agencies will also beef up security protection on public Wi-Fi networks by the end of the year to protect residents, workers and visitors. Those networks will be secured with a tool, dubbed Quad9, that is available to anybody in New York City and beyond at Quad9 DNS: Internet Security and Privacy in a Few Easy Steps. Quad9 routes a user's web traffic through servers that identify and block malicious sites and email.

Atlanta cyberattack

NYC Secure was unveiled as Atlanta officials worked alongside federal law enforcement and technicians from private security firms to investigate the cause of the attack that encrypted data on computers. Atlanta City Council President Felicia Moore said she was waiting to hear more about how the hackers breached city networks, the scope of the attack and when city services would be fully operational. "Everybody in the public wants to know. I want to know, too," Moore said at a news conference. "But I do think that we need to give them an opportunity to get the information."

Atlanta on Thursday reactivated a website that allows residents to make requests for trash pickup, report traffic signal outages and ask for other public works-related services. Municipal court services remained offline Thursday and City Hall employees told Reuters their work computers were still unusable a week after the hack was detected.

New York Offers Free Cybersecurity Tools to Public to Deter Hackers