before
>Current compliance regimes assume that security is measurable through checklists and periodic audits.
now they *should* assume xyz
about a term coined in a grant application to the rockefellerfoundation :0
idk but...
perhaps the the shape of the *real* problem is out lined by common theme ?
|>By definition, all assumptions introduce possibilities for error;
| -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razorthen
>Security regulations written for a world of human-speed attacks
like manual typing typing each port number ?
and pressing enter ??
and now
"ai"/open claw can write a for loop *for you*
tbh im struggling to make seance of it all ( though fear not : in my case this is "normal" )
>given the fast progress of A.I
last time i checked** ( ftr im just some idiot ( member of a self destructive species[0] ) with a keyboard mind you)
ppl writing ML ( note not the marketing term but academic discipline ; aka *apparently* not perused solely for the purpose of financial gain ) papers
seamed to have some doubts about the speed of "progress" in this regard
** ( Q: Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible?
A: Because Keynote Speakers Make Bad Life Decisions and Are Poor Role Models
https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentation/mickens )
[ 0 ] -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead ( decades of putting this into *our* environment could have *some* beneficial outcomes
,... if and only if you value its apparent impulsive / aggressive /etc.. effects on cognitive development
)
Whatever, but it worries me
if you bring the fear
ill bring the uncertainty and doubt
at least closed source alternatives wont get this kind of public scrutiny
so lets assume all that obscurity is a good thing!
..install party *anyone* ?
[press return]
Welcome
FAQ
Downloads
Wiki
Recent Posts