Re: Sometimes more devices doesn't mean more security.
"So they're selling a device for people who don't know how to properly setup a defensive perimeter."
Or a highly dispersed organisation like, say the NHS network or Maersk?
40557 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
It's a ploy to draw attention to the fact that they've created a system whereby there's a competitive market in tax rates for multinationals. They'll never get the consensus needed to change that because it gives smaller economies a double advantage: it draws in the multinationals' tax payments and, as a side effect, local businesses get the benefit of the lower corporation taxes as well.
They're now trying to mitigate that with state aid rules.
First question they need to settle:
Was this an item lost by someone who should have known better or did the finder stumble on someone's dead-letter drop?
And secondly, if it was the latter, was it smuggled out of an office by someone with access, authorised or otherwise, or was it assembled by someone who hacked into a system or systems that contained it?
Of course they will. They've got Dame Martha "lastminute.com" Lane Fox to explain it all to them.
They certainly will.
There are much sharper knives in that box than DMLF. In fact they're a good argument against elected legislators. What we really need are ex officio appointments of people who know what they're talking about like, say Presidents or equivalent of the Roy Soc, chartered professional institutions (a year or two ago I'd have added University VCs but that role seems to have turned into a gravy train); the HoL would be just the place. Then put it on equal footing with the HoC when it comes to passing legislation. We might even get to the position where the main parties have to compete and select candidates who also know what they're talking about.
"That's great and all, but you've already alienated 98% of non-techies by making it even as difficult as that."
Those who would find typing a one word command are unlikely to want to exercise that choice. The screen-shot on the Q4OS site shows that they've taken trouble to make the menu look post-W2K Windows-like so Windows migrants aren't likely to want to change much anyway.
I must download it to take a closer look; think it will become my standard distro for upgrading family from Windows from now on. I might even move SWMBO's new laptop over to it, away from standard Debian Stretch with its fashionably flat and ugly KDE 5 styling.
The real advantage of the US military was not technology, but in the size and scale of the US economy, by having a domestic industrial base that was not under regular air attack, secure, local supply chains for materials and components, along with little dependence on foreign food or energy resources.
And by being late to the party.
"The 2 CDs I found in the glovebox, plus whatever compilation albums Carlisle services had were our entertainment for the 8 hour drive."
We didn't have to drive as far as Milton Keynes but we found additional entertainment provided by "are we there yet?" and fights on the back seat.
"Bring back those happy days when any Ford key would open any Ford"
I'll see your Ford and raise you a Subaru. Having got to the destination I reached down to turn off the engine and found the key was missing. It had fallen out of the lock onto the floor with the engine turned on and running.
After that I realised I could start the car in the morning, take the key out with the engine running, lock up and go back into the house until the engine had warmed up and defrosted the windscreen.
"It does have the big advantage that it's mechanically impossible to have the fog lights on without the headlights"
AIUI the theory about fog lights is that by mounting them low you don't end up looking down the beam to the same extent that you do with headlights and that the backscatter doesn't, therefore, dazzle in the same way as headlight backscatter does. Not that I've ever found that convincing in practice.
But it does imply that the correct operation is to have headlights off when you need fog lights.
"Variations in where Reverse lives on the gear stick "
Ha!
Years ago we organised a student field trip. I drove to the site in my car. And waited for the rented mini-bus to arrive with the students. And waited. And waited.
Eventually it turned up. The driver had never driven a Ford before, missed a turning and drove on for miles before working his way back because he couldn't find reverse.
"Electronic handbrakes still need a button that lets you put them on / take them off."
Have you investigated how to release it if it fails?
I did that a while ago before I bought my current car. It involved breaking into a weather-proofed sealed unit and unwinding some humongous number of turns with a special tool from the toolkit. Because you'd now broken the weather-proofing you then had to get the whole expensive unit replaced. And good luck with keeping the car in place whilst unwinding it if you were parked on a hill.
I bought something else.
Having touched on certifying equipment in previous comments, here's a suggestion answering some points made about businesses providing support services.
Require services to be certified. If, as in a previous comment, ACLs weren't in place, the service provider loses its certification and must pass its contracts over to another provider.
And I don't mean simple ISO 9000 box ticking. The service actually being provided gets unannounced spot checks to see what the reality is.
"As you say Wales did not seem to be as badly hit and they are part of the same NHS as England."
No. They even keep separate records of the GPs working in Wales. I discovered a whole bundle of fun around that when I was trying to keep a unified database for a service provider. A GP moving from one English practice to another or one Welsh practice to another wasn't too bad. But when they were going to move across the border..
"The maths is easy, but the numbers that go into the maths are a tad more difficult to come by."
The easiest thing of all, once you get into lead times of 5 years and over, is to kick it all down the road into the next government's territory.
"Surely, Government Departments have the buying power to have hardware manufacturers give up hardware details so that proper drivers can be written when required."
Medical equipment has to be certified as safe and effective in the markets in which it sells. The NHS is probably not going to be counted as a big enough market to make manufacturers see some UK-only spec. as being worth spending time and money on pandering to; at least not unless they charge a great deal extra for it.
A better bet would be to pressure the certification authorities to ensure that in order to remain certified equipment has to be maintained reasonably up-to-date. Of course that would be easier if we were part of a larger market such as the EU but in order to make an extra £350m a week available for the NHS (as Boris still seems to insist on) we won't be.
The likelihood is that imposing a draconian regime of that (or any other) nature would simply result in a good deal of existing equipment being orphaned by the manufacturer declaring it EoL or simply closing down altogether.
"But looking to the future, can I assume that the NHS will be refusing to buy software tied to current versions of an OS likely to be obsolete in something like five years?"
It's not a matter of buying S/W alone. It's the complete package of H/W, the custom S/W that works with it (not only the user applications but also drivers) and the underlying O/S.
The driver bit is a particular problem if you're relying on the manufacturer to update it. After all, they're relying on the underlying O/S driver model not to change in 5 years. Is any OS vendor going to guarantee that? If, for instance, the OS implements vendor signing of the driver that might sound fine now if they've signed the existing driver. But in 5 years time they may simply refuse to sign all 3rd party drivers.
You also rely on all the parties in what might be a long chain of specialised bits & bobs that went into the device's BoM to play along or even to exist years into the future.
TL;DR It really isn't that simple.
It's far more convenient to blame the Norks, Russkies or whoever than blame MS for building stuff with holes in it and the NSA for not only discovering those holes, not (at least presumably not) feeding the info back to MS, not only that but building exploits for the holes and not only that but also letting the exploits leak out.
No, nothing to do with MS or the NSA; strictly down to the Norks.
"it boiled down to a case of aesthetics."
We had an architect with a fetish for putting windows right up to the corners of the building on both walls. Presumably it made it look as if the building was being held up by magic when, of course, everyone knew the external walls weren't load-bearing and the building was held up by pillars just behind the windows and blocking the light. Presumably in architect thinking it's better to be stupid and look clever rather than be clever and look ordinary.